Musings

It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness, -- an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. - W. E. B. Du Bois When I was younger, I was always fairly disconnected from the idea of Black history month. I did projects about various abolitionists, activists, and freedom fighters. I wrote essays and gave presentations about pioneers of the civil rights movement, but I never felt really connected to the celebration or commemoration of this specific month like I knew I was “supposed to.” I’m not gonna lie, I thought something was wrong with me, “am I not Black enough?” “what’s the big deal anyway?” It felt as if two sides of myself were at war with each other.

Another one from school, let me know what you think :) Introduction: Paternalism is generally understood as the interference of a sovereign state or an individual with the choices and actions of another person against their will. This interference is defended by the thought that interfering with the person is actually making them better off. The idea here is that there are some things that a person may want or desire that are not actually good for their well-being. On a larger theoretical scale, arguments about paternalism and its effects raise questions surrounding rationality, preference satisfaction, and most importantly, how individuals should be treated when their decision-making is considered irrational. Paternalists generally have two main concerns, an agent’s knowledge, and their autonomy. Is an agent knowledgeable enough to understand what is actually good for them? And should decisions made under conditions in which options have been limited count as fully rational. For t

This is another older post I had written about three years ago now. I think it's probably some of my best writing, even if some of my thoughts or opinions may have changed since then. INTROSPECTION [The believers are] those who, when afflicted by oppression, defend themselves. The requital of an evil act is an evil [act] like it, so whoever excuses and conciliates, his reward lies with Allah. Indeed, He does not like the wrongdoers. As for those who retaliate after being wronged, there is no ground for action against them. The ground for action is only against those who oppress the people and commit tyranny in the land in violation of justice. For such there will be a painful punishment. Since the ruthless, brutal lynching of George Floyd, many different centers, mosques, organizations, and people all across the nation have raised their voices in support of police reform, policy change, and the valuing of black lives. While I have nowhere near the qualifications of many of the peo

This post is one of those papers that I wrote in my last semester of college. Majoring in philosophy was probably one of the best things I ever did as it exposed me to so many different thoughts and ideas that I never would have been exposed to otherwise. It also forced me to tighten up my reasoning and writing. But, enough reminiscing. This post examines three different reforms to democracy. If one is not at least a little familiar with the literature of political philosophy in regard to democratic reform, then this post might be slightly confusing. However, I think I do a decent enough job explaining most of the major concepts. In this paper (blog post?), I will argue that secret voting in Congress is the best way to reform democracy. In order to illustrate this, first, I will go over two other potential democratic reforms. Specifically, Jason Brennan’s epistocracy and Christopher Freiman’s vote markets. Second, I will explain the problems these reforms seek to fix, but ultimately wh